Is Universal Music Using Bogus DMCA Takedowns As A Negotiating Tactic?

from the sure-looks-like-that dept

Last week, Bas called our attention to a report claiming that hip hop artist Skepta saw his own song taken down from YouTube via a DMCA claim from Universal Music... because Universal wanted to buy the song to give to Eminem. The details of the story are still a bit sketchy, and I didn't write about it at the time, because it does appear that whoever had the rights to the song (Skepta and some others) did agree to sell the song to Jimmy Iovine, head of Interscope Records, a Universal Music subsidiary. Even if Skepta apparently reacted with surprise to the takedown, he did appear to agree to the sale.

However, the reports certainly indicated some very questionable timing when it came to the takedown from Universal. If the various reports -- mostly based on Skepta's own tweets -- are accurate, then it certainly sounds as though Universal issued the takedown prior to buying the song, in an effort to keep the song from being seen as being out there. In other words, if the reports are accurate, then it sounds like Universal/Interscope/Iovine may have used the DMCA takedown as a negotiating tactic to try to buy the song from Skepta and crew. That would be a clear abuse of the DMCA, though one where it's unlikely to have any consequences, since Skepta and the others with copyright interest in the song agreed to sell. Still, if the reporting on the story is accurate, it's a pretty damning example of how certain parties view the DMCA.

Of course, it's also worth noting that if the point of the takedown was to erase the song "Dare to Dream," from the internet until Eminem could have his way with it, it's failed miserably. Because of the takedown (hello, Streisand Effect), the song is getting a ton of attention and is being uploaded all over the place.

Takedowns

Hey guys, isn't it WAY PAST time that false "takedowners" got more than a "darn you" here on Techdirt? Like a prohibition on ANY takedowns of, say, 30 days for the 1st one, 90 for the 2nd and forever for the 3rd? And these prohibitions should follow any name changes.

Remember when this DMCA was coming up before vote as a bill? It was stated by the RIAA that it would be used as was intended and not abused.

Now we have the ProtectIP bill coming up with the same sort of statement. Be very wary if this passes as it is a law for all to use, not just the MAFIAA. Any and all vague uses will be put to use with company having a clear advantage to use it. Rest assured that will be abused.